openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:31:14 GMT
> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA
> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>
> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a
> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a
> bit. That's just MHO though.

So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.

I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes. For example, I
just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
line.

I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
existing users.

I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
the trunk contents.

-Patrick

On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> > have been slipped into the trunk.
>
>
>
> Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> > a "1.0" branch.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a parent
> branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and 1.0.
> If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
> then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
>
> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA
> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>
> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a
> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a
> bit. That's just MHO though.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> > >
> > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future
> > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in
> > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on
> > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> > >
> > > -Patrick
> > >
> > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> Patrick-
> > >>
> > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> > >>
> > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
> > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
> > >> to be discussed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> > >>> tag
> > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
> > >>> work differently in svn?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Patrick
> > >>>
> > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> > >>>> release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> > >>>> time to
> > >>>> speak up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Patrick Linskey
> > >>> 202 669 5907
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Linskey
> > > 202 669 5907
> >
> >
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

Mime
View raw message